flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
hauxon wrote:
If we try to aim the discussion back towards the "GFX 100s for travel" topic. What I was trying to point out is that the 100S and GF 20-35/4 is actually not that big or heavy compared to the best camera + ultra-wide lens in the X-system (H2S+8-16/2.8). An X-E4 +10-24/4 would probably not be my alternative when considering GFX for travel.
Just consider the GF 110mm f/2. Would any sane person suggest the comparable lens in the X system is the XF 50mm f/2 …the same aperture, right?
---------------------------------------------
mdude85 wrote:
Re: GF 20-35 f4. Its field of view is equivalent to a 16-27mm lens on a FF sensor. Only considering field of view, the more comparable X-system lens would be the 10-24 (equivalent to 15-36 on a FF sensor). The XF 8-16 is quite a bit wider on the wide end.
Re: GF 110 f2. It depends what you mean by "comparable". What are you trying to compare? Field of view, minimum depth of field? If I had to "replace" the GF lens with an XF lens then I would choose the XF 56 f1.2, not 50 f2.
If I had to take a travel kit that gave me roughly the same results as a GFX camera (kind of an odd hypothetical, but let's go with it) then I'd choose a higher resolution sensor, not a stacked sensor. So I would take an XT5 or an XH2. ...Show more →
Personally I'm probably somewhere in between. I'd choose an XT5 over my XH2 for size but I wouldn't take a 50mm f1.0 (which I don't actually own) because than I may as well take the GFX. The whole point of a smaller sensor is that the system becomes more portable. Or has something unique that other systems can't offer. If I were to choose to take my 8-16 over my 10-24 it'd be because I want the extra coverage. I must have a unicorn of a 10-24 as my copy is REALLY good. So it's not a matter of IQ, even. I might take a smaller system because I want MORE apparent DoF for a given exposure, which is a real advantage of smaller systems.
As of Friday last week I now have my foot in every mainstream mirrorless system (I bought a Canon R5). Some would call it a problem. I call it a hobby.  Whan I look at each system as a whole I see subtle but distinct reasons to chaoose all or any of them. There is no doubt that there's a small improvent in IQ as sensor sizes increase but very little real world differences between sensors of the same size. It's also true that for a given bag weight you can carry more flexibility in a smaller sensor system. That difference may be smaller or larger depending on brand and personal choices but it's there.
The GFX is a stunning travel system, with limitations in weight and flexibility. *Personally* I think the 250 is too big as a travel lens. And to a lesser extent the 110. But you can get really good coverage from 20-200 (16-160 equiv) with three zooms. Add a fast prime 80mm 1.7 or the upcoming 55 and you're golden. Some will carry more. Some will carry less. Maybe a body and three primes is all you need. But *for me* the 20-35, 45-100, 100-200 and the 80 is almost ideal for 90% of my travel needs.
Where I can and when it suits I personally will carry a mini MF system for travel. I lke the files. I like the format. 90% of what I shoot is covered by these systems. I actually much prefer my X2D/907x cameras over the GFX100S but I mostly travel with the Fuji because of the zooms. Especially the 20-35, which was a big deal for the GFX system. It's fabulous. And I know I'm happy with the weight on my shoulders/hips for a full day out.
The X system suits me for a few specific reasons. I like the XT controls. It's MUCH easier to sling an XT5 with a SIgma 35mm over my shoulder than a GFX and a 63mm for a night out where photography isn't the primary purpose. Also the 1.4 lens will give me more DoF/higer shutter/lower ISO (pick your poison) than a 24x36mm system would, which I like at night. Finally there is nothing I have seen like the 150-600 (which I need/want in July). To have that reach and exposure I can't find anything unless I go for a 400 2.8 w' 2x or 600 f4 w' TC's. The trip I'm taking in July won't allow those lenses (too heavy) and they're not flexible like a zoom. The GFX certainly can't do that. And the zooms are f4, which is going to be an issue when I trek to the mountain gorillas. Hence the R5 and 28-70 f2.0.
Travel photography isn't a thing like *sports*, where the requirements are quite plain. Travel can be portraits, architecture, landscapes, street, wildlife, underwater, mountaineering. You're probably not going to need a 600 f4 hiking to base camp and you probably have limited use for a fisheye in the Serrengetti. I would speculate most people who have a GFX system also have something lighter and more flexible. But they always want to take the GFX becuase of the IQ and usability when they know it'll be easier with an XT2 and they don't usually print big enough to really see much difference. But they take the GFX, just in case. This is me, more often than not. Super high IQ is the lure of the GFX but I've left my mini MF systems at home and still been pleased with the photos I took. OTOH when I look back *I* see the differences.
There's also how you see the world. What's your vision? Some people are focused to a single prime. Really doesn't matter if all you have is one body and a 50 equivalent slung over your shoulder. Other have a bag of zooms. Some shoot wide open and others at f8. Some have a camera over each shoulder and nothing else. We have different budgets. Is it feasable to have a second GFX body on your once in a life time trip? How much stuff will the airline let you take? Or is this a car trip and you have five systems in the boot? What are your physical limitations? Not everyone can carry 4kg all day long. Not every one wants to.
Sure, we'd all like a system with the size of an OM-1, the IQ of the GFX100, the AF of an R5 and the price of a coffee. But that's not a reality and the only constant in gear choice will be compromise. Mostly though these compromises are in our heads because the most important tool for travel photography is the one holding the camera.
I have 5 big trips in the next 12 months and another 5 smaller ones booked. Italy, Tanzania and Uganda, Mongolia, India and Iceland. The gear I take to each one will be radically different to the others. Because that's what travel photography is. Laying out everything you have on a bed and then picking the best kit for the job, you can. If you're lucky you get to splurge on an extra lens you've always wanted.
Talking about sensors is fun but really not the most important thing for travelling.
Gordon
p.s. My Africa trip is in 4 months and I've been planning gear for it for at least the last two..... So there's that.
|
